5 ms·

Sin tax?

by kidme5 4y ago

Sin tax?

tptacek 4y ago
No, "pink tax" --- it recurs through all sorts of product categories. Products for women are generally higher-priced and have higher taxes and tariffs. The article concludes that this is an artifact of lobbying (different manufacturers/distributors are involved in the promotion of these goods).
- johncessna 4y ago
  And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Any tax should be based on fair standards and not arbitrary categories. I would hope this tax is based on E.G. the number of different fabrics in a garment, the complexity of construction steps / seam lengths relative to the utilized quantity of fabric (mm seam compared to mm^2 fabric), possibly excludes some considered basic nice things such as elastic support bands.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women. But of course if the headline and first paragraphs let the reader inaccurately assume it's the latter, you generate more outrage and more clicks. Honestly, for outrage-bait topics like this, the journalist isn't doing his job if he doesn't discover and explain the actual reason for the fact their reporting "'The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras,' Rampell writes," doesn't cut it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  In this case it's actually a tax. "Pink tax" usually refers to a strictly market phenomenon whereby for whatever reason women are less price sensitive so they're willing to pay more or won't use the equivalent men's product. I once saw an inverse pink tax - I got a 30% discount because I didn't care if my hardware set was pink (vs black) and the pink one (marked as supporting breast cancer research) had a woman on the cover. While I was perusing the two a man came by and asked me what the difference was and I said I think it's just pink. He refused to buy it and bought the black one instead. Idiot. I did try explaining why the pink tax is mostly a market phenomenon using this counterexample as an explanatory tool but the person who I was talking to thought that the pink tax was axiomatic and could not get through her head why something marketed to women (and in this case literally pink) was cheaper. Also idiot.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    They were probably idiots... However preference for color, logos, or lack there of, is also a type of utility which can have value. They were not idiots if they understood and made an informed choice.
    - throwawaymaths 4y ago
      The woman on the cover was on the cardboard sleeve, it goes away probably on the first use I told the guy: (paraphrasing of course, was years ago) "it's cheaper because they needed to lower the price since mostly guys are buying tools and guys don't want pink tools. You should buy the pink one because it's cheaper, I am" I probably should have told him: "nobody will think you're gay because you have pink tools in your garage. Save yourself some money"
      - nsxwolf 4y ago
        I would pay more for not-pink tools. I really don't like pink.
- esaym 4y ago
  It occurs yes. But in some categories it is inverse. I bought a new in box $300 Chicago Pneumatic 1/2" drive impact for $50 on ebay because it was the pink "breast cancer awareness" version.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  The original study has some methodological flaws, and there has been a more recent study that found the opposite. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3882214 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3882214 So it's far from a settled question.
elil17 4y ago
TIL it is a sin for me to wear clothes

Sin tax?

by kidme5 4y ago

Sin tax?

No, "pink tax" --- it recurs through all sorts of product categories. Products for women are generally higher-priced and have higher taxes and tariffs. The article concludes that this is an artifact of lobbying (different manufacturers/distributors are involved in the promotion of these goods).

johncessna 4y ago
And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Any tax should be based on fair standards and not arbitrary categories. I would hope this tax is based on E.G. the number of different fabrics in a garment, the complexity of construction steps / seam lengths relative to the utilized quantity of fabric (mm seam compared to mm^2 fabric), possibly excludes some considered basic nice things such as elastic support bands.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > And that's Lobbying to protect labor intensive work, which happens to be women's underwear. Not lobbying to tax women more cause they're women. But of course if the headline and first paragraphs let the reader inaccurately assume it's the latter, you generate more outrage and more clicks. Honestly, for outrage-bait topics like this, the journalist isn't doing his job if he doesn't discover and explain the actual reason for the fact their reporting "'The patterns seem to date back to lobbying from earlier eras,' Rampell writes," doesn't cut it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwawaymaths 4y ago
In this case it's actually a tax. "Pink tax" usually refers to a strictly market phenomenon whereby for whatever reason women are less price sensitive so they're willing to pay more or won't use the equivalent men's product. I once saw an inverse pink tax - I got a 30% discount because I didn't care if my hardware set was pink (vs black) and the pink one (marked as supporting breast cancer research) had a woman on the cover. While I was perusing the two a man came by and asked me what the difference was and I said I think it's just pink. He refused to buy it and bought the black one instead. Idiot. I did try explaining why the pink tax is mostly a market phenomenon using this counterexample as an explanatory tool but the person who I was talking to thought that the pink tax was axiomatic and could not get through her head why something marketed to women (and in this case literally pink) was cheaper. Also idiot.
- mjevans 4y ago
  They were probably idiots... However preference for color, logos, or lack there of, is also a type of utility which can have value. They were not idiots if they understood and made an informed choice.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    The woman on the cover was on the cardboard sleeve, it goes away probably on the first use I told the guy: (paraphrasing of course, was years ago) "it's cheaper because they needed to lower the price since mostly guys are buying tools and guys don't want pink tools. You should buy the pink one because it's cheaper, I am" I probably should have told him: "nobody will think you're gay because you have pink tools in your garage. Save yourself some money"
    - nsxwolf 4y ago
      I would pay more for not-pink tools. I really don't like pink.
esaym 4y ago
It occurs yes. But in some categories it is inverse. I bought a new in box $300 Chicago Pneumatic 1/2" drive impact for $50 on ebay because it was the pink "breast cancer awareness" version.
JamesBarney 4y ago
The original study has some methodological flaws, and there has been a more recent study that found the opposite. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3882214 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3882214 So it's far from a settled question.

elil17 4y ago

TIL it is a sin for me to wear clothes